Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 3 and the ongoing effort to repeal the most harmful elements of the so- called Affordable Care Act.

While our friends on the other side of the aisle have been trying to convince the American people that there is nothing to see here and that this poorly named law is working according to plan, the vast majority of our citizens know the truth: ObamaCare just doesn't work.

According to the results of a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of Americans want Congress to either change the Affordable Care Act significantly or repeal and replace it altogether. Let me repeat that. Eight out of every 10 people in this country agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that we need a major change in what is going on around here.

We need a major course correction in our health care system. It is not hard to see why this is the case. After all, under ObamaCare, the cost of health insurance has increased dramatically and will continue to do so well into the future. Under ObamaCare, individuals and families are being left with fewer and fewer choices when it comes to buying health insurance. Under ObamaCare, patients have fewer options and reduced access to health care providers. Under ObamaCare, the American people have been hit with steep taxes, burdensome mandates, and a health care system that simply does not meet their needs.

This year alone, premiums in the benchmark plan for the ObamaCare exchanges have gone up by an average of 25 percent, and in some parts of the country, the increases have been significantly larger than that. In addition, over the past 2 years, insurance plans have been dropping out of markets all over the country. As a result, it is estimated that more than half of the counties in the United States will have two or fewer available health insurance plans on the exchanges--and that is this year--and about a third of them have only one available option.

I am quite certain that every single Member of this Chamber has heard from a number of their constituents about these problems, about the problems they have faced as the Affordable Care Act has been implemented. I know I have. A number of Utahns have written to me to express their concerns about the increases in their insurance premiums. For example, last month, Austin from Provo, UT, told me that due to the growing cost of his insurance plan, ``I'm going to have to drop the insurance and face the penalty next year. I'm worried because, as a young husband and father, I'm barely making ends meet, and I'm not sure I can afford to pay the penalty for not having insurance.'' Similarly, Eryn from Spanish Fork, UT, noted that because her family's previous insurer dropped out of the Utah marketplace, the remaining plan that best met her family's needs was ``a plan with a small list of in- network providers and no coverage for out-of-network providers.'' She continued, saying that under this new plan, ``We will have a higher deductible ($13,000 for the family), we will have to pay the full cost of any visit to the doctor . . . and we will not be able to save as much money in our Health Savings Account each month because of the high premiums, which add up to $11,000 a year. . . . The premium is basically another mortgage payment for us, only we have no property to show for it. This is too much.''

No family should have to choose between paying their mortgage and paying for their health insurance. Yet, with all of ObamaCare's failures and broken promises, families throughout the country are currently having to make those kinds of choices.

Unfortunately, it does not get any better from here, not without a major change to the status quo. In fact, I think it is safe to say that if we fail to act, the worst is yet to come. Therefore, it is only fitting that we begin this new Congress by repealing ObamaCare and setting the stage for workable reforms that will actually bring down costs, provide more options, and let the American people--and not Washington bureaucrats--make their own health care choices. The budget resolution before us is the first step in this effort.

As we all know, the resolution contains reconciliation instructions to the relevant committees, including the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, to draft legislation to repeal ObamaCare. So after approving this resolution, the next step will be for the Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, as well as the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees over in the House, to get to work on putting together a repeal package. This process will be more difficult than it sounds. We don't want to be reckless, and we don't want to inflict more harm on the American people or our health care system; therefore, in addition to repealing ObamaCare, the legislation we draft pursuant to this budget resolution will have to include a stable transition period to give us the time and space we need to provide more sensible reforms.

Under the budget resolution, the legislation to repeal ObamaCare and provide that transition period will need to be reported to the Budget Committee by January 27. Then both the House and Senate will debate the legislation, hopefully passing it by simple majority votes and sending it to the desk of the incoming President. Once we pass this repeal legislation, we will come to the most important step in the process: replacing ObamaCare with a health care system worthy of the American people.

This will not be a simple endeavor. It is going to take a great deal of work, and it will almost certainly require the efforts of people from both parties. The Finance Committee is going to have a

major role to play throughout this process of repealing ObamaCare, providing for a secure transition, and replacing the law with more effective reforms. Our committee has jurisdiction over all the major Federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, we will have jurisdiction over the tax provisions, which include all of ObamaCare's harmful taxes as well as the premium tax credits provided to purchase plans in the ObamaCare exchanges.

I have spoken at length to my Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee about these issues, and all of them are ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to put our Nation's health care system on a more responsible path. We are going to get it done. In that I have no doubts.

To be sure, the first few steps in this effort are going to happen quickly. Once again, the plan is to produce repeal legislation before the end of this month. This, of course, is how it has to be. The American people don't have the time for us to wait around on these issues, and we don't have the luxury of sitting back and watching the problems get worse over time. The problems facing our health care system are growing by the day. We need to take the swiftest possible action.

We intend to act quickly and methodically to begin providing relief for the millions of Americans who are currently suffering as a result of ObamaCare and the unworkable system it has created. As I noted, if that effort is going to be successful, it should be bipartisan. Both Congress and the incoming administration will need to work together.

Cabinet Nominations

On that point, Madam President, I do want to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle have as recently as this morning made a number of statements and issued several demands with regard to the process for considering and confirming the President-elect's Cabinet nominees. According to my colleagues' statements, they want multiple rounds of hearings on every nominee, which, by the way, is unprecedented. This morning, they even went further, issuing demands that certain preconditions be met before hearings could even be held on a particular nomination. These tactics are, to put it bluntly, preposterous. My colleagues are certainly free to oppose any nominee and to try to convince others to do the same. It is unfortunate that they have decided to go further by politicizing the process by which we consider nominations.

Speaking for the Senate Finance Committee, I have to say that we have an established set of vetting procedures for all executive branch nominees. Republicans and Democrats alike have those particular procedures. That process has been in place for decades and has traditionally been bipartisan.

By all accounts, the Finance Committee's longstanding vetting process is exceptionally thorough and fair, and it is deeply regrettable that some of our colleagues would try to undermine that process and not provide the incoming Trump administration's nominees the same respect and regard our committee has provided for nominees in the Obama administration and prior administrations as well. As chairman, I take this process very seriously. I have made no efforts to abbreviate or short-circuit our procedures for any nominee and have no intention of doing so in the future. I am certain all of our chairmen here in the Senate can say the same thing.

My hope is that my colleagues will stop politicizing this process at every step and allow the Senate to function as it has under both Republican and Democratic administrations. My friends on the other side may not like the results of the recent election, but their disappointment of the outcome is no justification for reinventing the way we do business here in the Senate.

I hope we will all take this into consideration and we will start cooperating with each other and get this government moving again and that we will support and sustain these people who are qualified and good people who are being chosen by the Trump-elect administration. I think it is important that we do these things and do them carefully and that we treat each other with the respect that is well deserved in this body. I hope that the petty, cheap politics will be discontinued.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Erma H. Rosenhan in honor of her 100th birthday on February 28, 2015.

Erma has devoted years of her life to genealogical research, submitting over 400,000 names--many of them German--to the Family History Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for ordinance work in LDS temples. She has served the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in many different capacities, including as an employee, as a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and as a missionary. Her extensive genealogical work and her service to the LDS Church have blessed both her extended family and all those who know her. On her 100th birthday, she shows no signs of slowing down; in fact, she still conducts research 3 days a week at the Family History Library in downtown Salt Lake City.

Erma H. Rosenhan is an example of kindness, hard work, and humble perseverance. She deserves our recognition for her lifetime of selfless, diligent service.

Mr. President, last week I joined my colleague Senator Burr in unveiling the latest version of our legislative proposal to repeal and replace the so-called Affordable Care Act. We are joined this time around by our friend in the House, Chairman Upton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

We call our proposal the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, or the Patient CARE Act for short. As you may recall, we first unveiled this framework last year and in general it received high marks for being a serious, responsible alternative to ObamaCare. We have unveiled the latest version of the proposal in hopes of continuing the conversation we began in the last Congress.

Let's face it. ObamaCare isn't working. It is not working. Sure, its proponents in the Senate and elsewhere have gotten pretty good at cherry-picking data in order to convince the American people that the President's health care law is a success. But the American people know the truth. The law is a disaster for individuals, families, and employers alike.

Despite the claims that ObamaCare would lower health care costs, costs have continued to skyrocket. Due to all the mandates in the law, businesses are slowing hiring and moving employees into part-time work. Of course, the law includes more than a trillion dollars in new taxes that impact consumers and businesses around the country. We need a better path forward

and a long-term vision for sustainable health care reform.

I want to take just a few minutes today to talk about the approach we want to take with the Patient CARE Act and why it is a better approach than the one being taken under ObamaCare. Our plan rests on four simple principles. First, repeal ObamaCare with all its costly mandates, taxes, and regulations. Second, reduce costs by taking the government out of the equation and instead empowering consumers to make choices about their own health care. Third, provide common sense consumer protections, including protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. And fourth, reform our broken Medicaid system by giving States more flexibility to provide the best coverage for their citizens.

Let me talk about each of these principles in a little more detail. For any health care proposal to have a chance of success, it must get rid of ObamaCare. The failures of ObamaCare have been well documented here on the Senate floor and elsewhere. The American people deal with those failures on a daily basis. That is why the first principle of our proposal is to repeal ObamaCare once and for all. Then we move on to address the biggest barrier to health care in this country-- skyrocketing costs.

Our plan would give taxpayers affordable options to meet their health care needs by harnessing the power of the marketplace--not through Federal Government mandates. With more options in the private insurance marketplace, people will be better able to find insurance that meets their needs. The lack of choice and draconian coverage mandates is one of ObamaCare's largest shortcomings. Our proposal would allow consumers to find affordable plans that address their particular needs without making them pay for coverage they will never use or want.

Our proposal would also give States more options to provide people with more coverage. Under our plan families earning up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level would be eligible for a tax credit to purchase insurance of their choosing. In addition, our plan would help small businesses enjoy the same advantages in the marketplace as large businesses by allowing them to band together to leverage their purchasing power to buy insurance for their employees.

The Patient CARE Act also proposes an expansion of the health savings accounts so that people can plan and save for their future medical needs. Under our plan, for the first time consumers would be able to use their pretax dollars to pay premiums and deductibles. Our proposal would inject more transparency into health care costs so people can know what their providers are charging and how successful they are.

In addition, we include other cost-saving measures such as medical malpractice liability reform to help reduce the expensive practice of unnecessary defensive medicine.

Our plan would reduce the distortions in the Tax Code that actually increase the cost of health care in our country by capping the unlimited employee exclusion. This is a key way of restraining costs that has support across the political and economic spectrum.

In our proposal the exclusion is capped at a generous $30,000 for a family plan, and that threshold will continue to grow at CPI plus one. Most importantly, we make sure we preserve the employer-sponsored health care system for those 160 million Americans who rely on it by leaving the employer deduction untouched and by repealing the job- killing employer mandate. By increasing consumer choice and utilizing the power of the market, our proposal will actually reduce health care costs, something ObamaCare has miserably failed to do.

Our plan also includes a number of commonsense consumer protections. For example, we would make sure a person would not see their coverage get canceled if they get sick. Our plan would also ensure that people with preexisting conditions could not be denied access to health insurance. Period.

I will repeat that for my friends on the other side, who were confused about this in some of their speeches: No American with a preexisting condition can be denied coverage under our plan. End of story.

We would also let children stay on their parents' plans through age 26 and prevent insurers from putting caps on total benefits paid out over a person's lifetime so that no patient will have to worry about maxing out their coverage.

Finally, our plan would address the current failings of the Medicaid Program. Keep in mind, many of the newly insured people credited to ObamaCare have obtained their coverage through the expansion of Medicaid. Of course, this is absurd as Medicaid is a financially unsound program that continues to swallow up State budgets on a yearly basis. ObamaCare did not improve the stability of Medicaid, it only threatened it further.

The Patient CARE Act includes a key reform that is similar to the Medicaid modernization plan that Chairman Upton and I proposed in the last Congress.

Currently, Federal taxpayers have an open-ended liability to match State Medicaid spending, which is a significant driver in Medicaid's budgetary challenges. Our proposal would create per capita spending caps--something President Clinton, and many Democrats who remain in this Chamber, supported in the past.

We would couple this structural reform to Medicaid with new flexibility for States to manage their Medicaid populations. On top of that, we would give those on Medicaid the option of purchasing private health insurance, which is more frequently accepted by quality doctors.

I hope you are grasping a pattern when it comes to this proposal. At virtually every step, our aim with this proposal is to take the Federal Government out of the equation and put individuals and families in charge of making their own health care decisions. We trust the American people to make the best choices for themselves.

The Patient CARE Act represents a sustainable and achievable alternative to ObamaCare, one that will succeed without the tax hikes, the mandates, and the outrageous government spending that came part and parcel with the Affordable Care Act. Most importantly, it will actually reduce the cost of health care in this country.

Once again, our hope with unveiling the latest version of this framework is that we can continue the conversation about improving health care for individuals and families. I have given just a top-line, 35,000-foot overview of the proposal here today. I want to invite my colleagues to take a look at our ideas and give us your feedback. I hope health care experts around the country will continue to do the same.

Unlike ObamaCare, this is a product that will rely on consensus and feedback. We have more work to do. It is important, and I look forward to more discussions and conversations about these issues.

Mr. President, I also rise today to speak about the recent progress we have made in restoring the Senate as an institution.

After being sworn in as President pro tempore just over a month ago, I rose to address the state of the Senate and how we, as Members, must work together to restore its greatness. This is an opportune moment to take stock and to reflect briefly on our progress toward achieving this goal.

I am pleased to report that we have embarked on a new chapter of thoughtful, productive legislating in this Chamber, just as the Framers intended us to and just as the American people expect us to.

We have had hours upon hours of open, constructive debate with arguments from both sides of the aisle. We have considered dozens of amendments reflecting a full range of political viewpoints. The majority leader promised this body that he would restore regular order, and that is precisely what he has done. Not only have we engaged in fulsome debate and considered dozens of amendments, but we have also already passed four major bipartisan bills in a single month to reform and extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to address the critically important issue of veteran suicides, and--my bill yesterday--to provide effective restitution for victims of child pornography.

That is what voters elected us to do--to craft good legislation, to debate it,

to improve it through the open amendment process, and then send it to the President's desk.

In my remarks when I was sworn in as President pro tempore, I noted that in recent years the foundations of the Senate's unique character-- meaningful debate and an open amendment process--have come under sustained assault by those who have prioritized scoring political points over preserving the Senate's essential role in our system of government.

What a difference such a short time can make. What a breath of fresh air these last 6 weeks have been for this body on both sides of the aisle. We are moving forward. We are keeping our promises, and we are helping to restore the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body.

I wish to highlight some specifics of these positive changes we have witnessed over the past work period.

First, robust debate. The late Senator Robert C. Byrd liked to say that ``as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' In this new Congress, we are restoring the right to meaningful debate.

As I noted last month, when a full and robust debate has occurred, invoking cloture--a motion to end debate--is often appropriate. But we must not abuse this power by always seeking reflexively to cut off debate before it even begins. In the dark days of the previous Congress, we often saw such motions to cut off debate filed as soon as debate had begun, eviscerating any meaningful opportunity for considering the issues.

The Senate desperately needed to return to a system where all Senators have a say in what the Senate does and are able to express their views without getting cut off at the pass. We are now returning to that system. We have resisted the temptation to cut off debate immediately.

Under the majority leader's leadership, this body spent the better part of 3 weeks considering the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. During that time, Senators--both Republican and Democrat--enjoyed ample opportunity to voice their position on the bill as well as on our energy policy more broadly. This represents the exact sort of deliberate character the Senate was designed to embody.

Indeed, the Democratic minority actually used more hours of floor debate on Keystone than did the Republican majority. To me, this is a remarkable statistic indicative of our new majority's commitment to treat the minority fairly and to approach individual Senators, regardless of party, as valuable contributors to our work rather than as mindless partisans.

The Senate was also designed to be the institution in our system of republican self-government that produced wise legislation. Popular passions, parochial interests, and factionalism--what Edmund Randolph called the ``turbulence and follies of democracy''--were to be defined in the Senate where smaller membership and larger constituencies and longer terms would improve the legislative product.

These structural features of the Senate led to the development of a tradition in which individual Members were allowed to offer amendments freely--one of the primary mechanisms by which this body can refine legislation for the better. For centuries, this notion of an open amendment process has been at the core of the Senate's identity. But in recent years, many of us have bemoaned the demise of this tradition. In effect, one of this institution's most defining characteristics was emasculated for partisan political purposes. But the way we dealt with amendments over the course of the last month shows that the open amendment process is making a comeback.

The majority leader shepherded through votes on more than 30 amendments in January, more than double the amendment votes permitted by the Democrats in all of 2014. In fact, in 1 week alone, we voted on more amendments than the previous majority allowed us to vote on all of last year. There could be no clearer evidence of this body's resurgence.

The facts speak for themselves. While one former Democratic Senator did not receive a vote on any of his amendments during the entire extent of his service in this body over the prior 6 years, the lone freshman Democrat Senator in this Congress, the junior Senator from Michigan, has already received a vote on one of his amendments in just the first few weeks of his service here. Truly, under this new majority, Senators of both parties are individually contributing to our work for the common good.

A key part of returning to regular order is restoring the committee process. A healthy committee process is essential to a well-functioning Senate. In committees, Members are often best able to work together to debate, draft, and amend legislation that ultimately passes the Senate. We began resuscitating the committee process in our consideration of the Keystone XL Pipeline bill.

I commend the tireless efforts of the distinguished Chair and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who together masterfully led this body through recently unfamiliar territory of legislating through regular order.

The Senator from Alaska merits particular praise for the skill she demonstrated in guiding this bill through the process, while the Senator from Washington should be lauded for her commitment to a fair and orderly process despite her opposition to the underlying policy. Their admirable work set an important example for the rest of us as we return to regular order in the 114th Congress by working together to improve legislation rather than simply trying to shut each other out of the process.

I heard voices from some corners quibbling over certain elements of the Keystone debate process, but to focus on these criticisms misses the forest for the trees by fixating on one or two nitpicks and ignoring how deliberative and inclusive the process really was. We enjoyed open debate, ample opportunity to amend, and respect for committee expertise. This all contributed to the passage of a bipartisan bill.

The proof is in the votes. Of the almost 50 votes on Keystone-related matters, few followed strict party lines, and the final bill won passage with 62 affirmative votes, including those of 9 Democrats. Twenty percent of Democrats present, nearly one-fifth of the caucus, voted for the Keystone bill. This was real bipartisanship.

The result was a critically important piece of legislation that the President of the United States should sign into law. I urge him to do so. But that is not what we are hearing from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No, the President has said he will veto the bill. In fact, he said he would veto it before we even took it up--before any amendments had even been offered.

Instead, President Obama appears determined to ignore the will of the U.S. Congress, dismissing bills out of hand that have yet to reach his desk. I fail to see how this recalcitrance advances the cause of responsible governance or responds to the will of the American people who made their preferences clearly known at the ballot box last November.

I, for one, will not let the President's irresponsible attitude toward this institution diminish my commitment to it. In fact, I call on each Senator to continue working to restore our Chamber's proper functioning. I urge all of us to participate actively in the committee process, help produce sound legislation, and carry out our institutional duties.

The American people can then see for themselves the stark difference between a Senate that works and a White House that is unwilling to engage in genuine negotiation and compromise.

I will close with a note on civility, that crucial ingredient we must never overlook, even in the heat of political discourse. I recall the words of Senator Chris Dodd, my friend, who represented Connecticut in this body for 30 years. In his final speech here on the Senate floor in late 2010, he reminded us that the Senate was intended to be a place where every Member's voice could be heard and where deliberation and even dissent would be valued and respected. As Senator Dodd explained, ``Our Founders were concerned not only with what was legislated, but-- just as importantly--with how we legislated.''

I have observed that debate on this floor during the past few weeks-- although tense at times--has on the whole been genuine, balanced, and respectful. We must remain true to this

ethos as we continue to reinvigorate the debate and amendment process.

In the weeks and months ahead, new disagreements will surely arise. This is when civility and statesmanship are most needed. We must each overcome whatever instincts may drive us away from civil discourse and toward anger, bitterness, petulance, or self-promotion.

When this new Congress convened just over six weeks ago, I spoke of our collective duty to restore the Senate. I expressed my confidence that we could make the Senate work again by returning to regular order, promoting robust debate, and enabling an inclusive amendment process. We have made admirable progress over the last month. Our actions are backing up our rhetoric. Let us sustain this momentum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the bill before us proves the axiom that big things come in small packages. This bill, the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, may only be several pages long, but it is a very big bill.

In 1994, by enacting the Violence Against Women Act, Congress required that defendants who commit certain crimes pay restitution to their victims. I had a lot to do with that bill. These are crimes--such as the sexual exploitation of children--that have a particularly devastating impact on victims, and they need help to put their lives back together.

Last year, in a case titled ``Paroline v. United States,'' the Supreme Court concluded that the restitution statute cannot provide the restitution that Congress promised for child pornography victims. The only way to fix this problem is to amend the restitution statute in a way that accounts for the insidious and evil nature of child pornography itself.

The Supreme Court held in Paroline that under the statute as currently written, a victim can seek restitution only for losses that are directly related to an individual defendant's distribution or possession of specific images of her abuse. That is not only virtually impossible to prove, but it pretends that defendants and images are isolated and self-contained. The truth is that in the Internet age, defendants are part of a growing, shifting, and constantly active group of individuals who keep the victimization going. As the Supreme Court put it in Paroline last year, each viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the child's abuse. Everyone who drives the trafficking in those images repeats that abuse and contributes to a victim's losses. Some of them will be caught and prosecuted, while others will hide in the shadows and seek safety in numbers.

The harsh reality for a victim is that the Internet has multiplied the number of individuals who harm her and, at the same time, made it harder to identify them so she can seek restitution--or should I say, she really can't seek restitution.

The bill before us today addresses this cruel catch-22. This bill is named for Amy and Vicky, the victims in two of the most widely viewed child pornography series in the world.

When I reintroduced this bill on January 28, I also shared the story of Andy, a young man in Utah who is the victim in another widely distributed child pornography series.

He is the named victim in more than 700 cases but has been granted restitution under Paroline in only one-quarter of the cases in which he has sought it and actually received restitution in just two of those cases.

This bill provides judges with options for calculating a victim's total losses and imposing restitution in different kinds of cases. That is not always easy for the very reason that I just described. A judge must impose restitution in an individual case for losses that flow from ongoing harm. But that is the diabolical nature of child pornography, and we must equip the criminal justice system to address it.

This bill helps victims in another important way. Today a victim must chase every single defendant to seek restitution, only to be told that she

must seek the impossible and, therefore, receive next to nothing. In addition to providing a way for judges to require meaningful restitution in individual cases, this bill allows defendants who harm the same victim to seek contribution from each other to spread that restitution cost.

Let me put it as simply as I can. The current statute maximizes a victim's burden and minimizes her restitution. This bill minimizes a victim's burden and maximizes her restitution.

Both Amy and Vicky personally endorse this bill. National victim advocacy groups also support it, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, and the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.

Last October I received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the attorneys general of 43 States--22 Republicans and 21 Democrats. This has, in fact, been a truly bipartisan effort.

The senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has been my partner from the start in developing this legislation and has been a champion for crime victims for many years. It is important to have him on this bill. He is one of the great leaders in the Senate today, and we intend to do more together in the future.

The cosponsors include 22 Republicans and 17 Democrats. Big things really do come in small packages.

I have been contacted by advocates working with dozens of countries around the world to tackle the problem of child pornography and exploitation. They emphasize the need for meaningful restitution and say that this legislation can be an example for other countries to follow.

Congress in 1994 required full restitution for child victims of sexual exploitation. The Supreme Court last year confirmed that the restitution statute cannot keep that promise to victims of child pornography.

Enacting this legislation shows Congress at its best, stepping up and taking the action necessary to address this problem. Amy, Vicky, and Andy are counting on us.

This is an extremely important bill. It means that victims of child pornography--usually videos that are shipped all around the world and seen by, maybe, millions--have the chance of being able to get true restitution under this bill. Before that, they would have to go and sue everyone who was involved, and there is no way they could find that out, no way they could really do that, no way they could really get restitution and justify the attorneys' fees, and no way they could really vindicate themselves and show these people, these horrible people who do these things to children, that they are not going to get away with it anymore.

This bill eliminates all of that. This bill makes it possible for the victims of pornography and childhood exploitation to be able to recover and to get restitution for the very poor treatment they have undergone.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the impending exhaustion of the disability trust fund administered by the Social Security Administration.

The Social Security system contains two important programs. One is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance--or OASI--Program, often referred to as the retirement program. That program provides income to insured workers and their families at retirement or death, based on their payroll tax contributions to the OASI trust fund. The other is the disability insurance--or DI--program, which provides income to insured workers who suffer from a disabling condition, based on their payroll tax contributions to the DI trust fund. Unfortunately, both trust funds face trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations.

Each trust fund is legally distinct, although they have been commingled in the past into an imaginary fund labeled the ``OASDI trust fund'' or mingled with the General Fund.

Reserves in the DI trust fund are projected to be exhausted sometime late in calendar year 2016, after which beneficiaries face benefit cuts of around 20 percent. The DI program alone faces unfunded obligations over the next 75 years of more than $1.2 trillion. Reserves in the OASI trust fund are projected to be exhausted in 2034, after which retirees and their survivors face benefit cuts of around 25 percent. The retirement program alone faces unfunded obligations of around $9.4 trillion over the next 75 years.

Financial operations of the OASI and DI trust funds are overseen by a board of trustees composed of six members. Four of them serve based on their positions in the Federal Government, and two are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Currently, Treasury Secretary Lew, Labor Secretary Perez, HHS Secretary Burwell, and Social Security's Acting Commissioner Colvin serve on the board. This is not what anyone would consider a band of fiscal hawks. Yet, in their most recent report, these trustees--who are, once again, high-ranking officials in the Obama administration-- urged Congress to take action ``as soon as possible to address the DI program's financial imbalance.'' Those are pretty clear words. Those are not the words of any Republican trying to manufacture a crisis. They are not the words of any Republican trying to hold anyone or anything hostage, as some of my friends on the other side have claimed. Rather, they come from Obama administration officials who, in their roles as trustees, are forced to acknowledge reality.

I want to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration and my colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the aisle-- to begin to work with me to find solutions that will at least begin to chip away at the known financial imbalances in the DI trust fund so that we can prevent the coming benefit cuts.

Last year, in a Finance Committee hearing on the DI program, I made clear my willingness to work with anyone in Congress or the administration to examine options and ideas about the DI program before the DI trust fund becomes exhausted. Indeed, I have been trying for years to get the administration to engage on this issue. Unfortunately, to date I have heard nothing from the administration and very little from my friends on the other side of the aisle about this issue. What I have heard is fearmongering about supposed Republican plans to slash benefits or engineer a false crisis or hold beneficiaries hostage. I am not exaggerating; those are the very words they have used.

In budget after budget, the President has all but ignored Social Security in general and the DI program in particular. The President's budgets generally only include calls for more administrative funding for the Social Security Administration or the occasional idea for an experimental trial.

After years of my asking the administration to engage on the DI program's financial challenges, the President quietly inserted his policy position on DI just recently. With his fiscal year 2016 budget, we finally learned that the President supports a ``stand-alone reallocation'' of incoming tax receipts away from the retirement trust fund over to the disability insurance trust fund. Oddly, one of the objectives appears to be to make a reallocation so that both the disability and the retirement trust funds become exhausted in the same future year, which, according to the budget, is 2033.

Needless to say, having a joint trust fund exhaustion as a target does not solve any fundamental financial problem facing the long-run financial challenges of Social Security. Moreover, it takes away any urgency for Congress to improve the disability program now, before it becomes harder to do so down the road.

By stand-alone reallocation, the administration means that it wants to shift funds from the retirement fund to the DI fund with no accompanying policy changes of any kind--no change in overall payroll taxes, no change in benefits, no substantive changes in program integrity aside from the persistent call for more mandatory administrative funds, not even a study.

There have recently been many misconceptions and misstatements about the idea of a reallocation in general and a stand-alone reallocation in particular.

The last time Congress made a reallocation from the retirement trust fund to the DI trust fund was in 1994. At that time, Social Security trustees wrote the following about the reallocation and the DI trust fund:

While the Congress acted this past year to restore its

short-term financial balance, this necessary action should be

viewed as only providing time and opportunity to design and

implement substantive reforms that can lead to long-term

financial stability. . . .

Unfortunately, those reforms never came. And now, also unfortunately, the President wants to tell the American people the same story: Punt now to provide time for later action.

In addition, the financial challenges facing Social Security are very different from past trust fund account reshuffling, including the one in 1994. The public trustees of the Social Security trust fund wrote just last year:

The present situation is very different from that of 1994.

. . . The DI Trust Fund's impending reserve depletion signals

that the time has arrived for reforms that strengthen the

financing outlooks for OASI and DI alike.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say that we have had many reallocations between the DI and OASI trust funds in the past and that it is just ordinary housekeeping or a technical change. It is something we do all the time, they say, so there is nothing really to see here.

True, there have been trust fund reallocations in the past--sometimes

from OASI to DI, sometimes the other way around, sometimes with overall payroll tax rate changes and sometimes not. But there has never--let me repeat that: never--been a stand-alone reallocation from the retirement to the disability trust fund.

Most people who would dispute this talk about the reallocation of 1994, which I mentioned earlier, but if the 1994 reallocation is somehow to be considered a model of ordinary housekeeping that we should repeat today, I think it is a bad model for the reasons I just identified. Following that model, we would defer action until later, all the while claiming that real changes were on the horizon. And following that model, we would continue to do nothing to place Social Security on a more stable financial footing.

Moreover, thinking of reallocation as just a normal way of doing business raises many questions: Why was a separate DI trust fund set up to begin with? Why do we even call them trust funds if they are merely fungible accounting devices? Why not merge the OASI and DI funds and call them the singular Social Security trust fund? More generally, given the recent stimulus-inspired mingling of General Fund revenues with the OASI and DI trust funds, why have Social Security trust funds at all? And if historical reallocations are to be used to guide what we should do today, then perhaps the recent reallocations from the General Fund to both the OASI and DI trust funds, having been the most recent historical reallocation episodes, should be the most prominent precedents.

When circumstances make us focus on the solvency of any trust fund, there are two options. Option one: We can face up to the known financial challenges, examine what can be done about them in a bipartisan way, and try to enact solutions. Option two: We can kick the proverbial can further down the road by taking the most expedient route to reshuffle resources temporarily in order to get the problem out of the way in the short term.

Unfortunately, the President and his allies here in Congress seem to prefer the latter--to kick the can down the road, the kick-the-can strategy. This is especially disappointing given what the President said about Social Security when he took office in 2009. At that time, the President said about Social Security:

What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are

now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick

it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by

making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my

watch, not someone else's.

Well, the President has been on his watch for 6 years now, and if we look at his administration's proposed solution to the coming DI trust fund exhaustion, he seems more than content to push any hard decisions off until his term is over. President Obama now not only wants to kick the can down the road, but he also wants to do it in a way that has never been done before.

Elementary budget arithmetic makes clear that you simply cannot strengthen the financial outlooks for our two Social Security programs and their trust funds simply by shifting resources from one to the other. Indeed, Director Elmendorf of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said: ``If you want to help both programs you're not going to accomplish that by just moving money around between them.''

Rather than engaging in yet another unnecessary partisan battle, we need to take this opportunity to work together to see what can be done in a bipartisan way to address the impending exhaustion of reserves in the DI trust fund. Once again, I urge the administration and my friends on the other side of the aisle to work with me on this issue.

Mr. President, I will have more to say on this issue in coming days. For now, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute to a respected political leader, a cherished friend, and an exceptional human being--Richard ``Dick'' Richards. A native of Ogden, UT, Dick touched the lives of many and was deeply respected for his wisdom, his no-nonsense approach, and his remarkable integrity.

When I first considered running for the Senate in 1976, Dick was serving as the Utah Republican Party chairman. At the time, I was a political novice, but Dick's early encouragement and counsel were instrumental in my candidacy and subsequent victory. I will always be grateful for his invaluable support during my first term as a Senator.

Dick and I shared a great admiration and respect for President Ronald Reagan. We were both early supporters who campaigned tirelessly to help get President Reagan elected in 1980. In President Reagan, we saw a leader who shared our conservative values and our willingness to take a stand on hard issues. Impressed with Reagan's integrity, Dick and I put our whole heart and energy into campaigning for this great man.

For many years, Dick and President Reagan shared a close friendship based on mutual love and respect. During the campaign, President Reagan noted Dick's political savvy and leadership skills and later tapped him to head the National Republican Committee from 1981-82. As chairman, Dick raised the Republican Party's profile and fought passionately for conservative principles across all levels of government. His leadership on the national stage set a course for many more years of campaign activity and advisory roles in Utah and across the Nation.

Capping Dick's successful career in politics was his tireless help in establishing the Richard Richards Institute for Ethics at his alma mater, Weber State University. The institute is carrying on Dick's legacy to inspire future leaders to enter politics and government and lead with integrity and strength. In his book, ``Climbing the Political Ladder, One Rung at a Time,'' Dick discusses the virtues of civic engagement and encourages youth to become actively involved in the political process.

Dick's public accomplishments were numerous, but his most significant achievements were personal. His greatest source of pride was his loving partnership with his wife Annette, their 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 15 great-grandchildren. He deeply cared for each of them and always made family his top priority.

Dick also donated countless hours of service to his community and his faith. He served in many important leadership positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and was always generous with his time.

Dick Richards was a truly remarkable man who led by example, hard work, and a desire to do what is right. His impact on Utah will be felt for generations to come. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to his beautiful wife Annette, whose loyal companionship and counsel sustained Dick throughout his career. May God's love embrace Annette and her family with peace and comfort during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to require that Congress and the President handle the American people's money more responsibly and balance the Nation's debt and budget. Like the last two Congresses, the entire Republican Conference has cosponsored this proposal.

I know the Constitution sets a high threshold for Congress to propose an amendment, but it is critical we do so for three reasons:

First, piling up more debt year after year is imposing greater and greater harm to our economy and to our society. Last week, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee, noting that the national debt is expected to swell by another $7.6 trillion--trillion with a T--over the next 10 years. He said:

Such large and growing national debt would have serious

negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending

for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the

long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to

unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of

a fiscal crisis.

He is the Director of the Federal budget office and he said that on January 21, 2015. Just think about that. And he is a Democrat. He has been a very good budget director, as far as I am concerned, and I have enjoyed looking at his analyses over the years.

Our Nation is on an unsustainable path and we simply cannot wait any longer to make responsible decisions for our future.

Second, Washington will not keep our fiscal house in order unless required to do so by the Constitution. Congress has pretended that good intentions alone would keep our checkbook balanced. Congress has tried putting limits in place by legislation or other rules. Congress has stuck its head in the sand or at other times cried that the sky would fall if we really did get our fiscal act together. Over many decades we have demonstrated that nothing short of a constitutional requirement will work.

Third, the American people have the right to set rules for how Washington handles their money. The Constitution is a rulebook for government and it belongs to the American people. Proposing an amendment does not add it to the Constitution but only sends it to the States for debate and consideration. And while it takes two-thirds of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, it takes three- fourths of the States to ratify it. That high level of national consensus may or may not exist, but the American people deserve the opportunity to find out.

On June 7, 1979, nearly 36 years ago, I stood on this floor when I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 86, my first balanced budget amendment. In today's dollars the budget deficit that year was $95 billion and the national debt was $2.6 trillion, which was about 30 percent of our gross domestic product. I said then that only in Washington could this situation be described as anything less than obscene.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I concede a few things have changed since 1979. For example, the deficit for the current fiscal year is six times higher than it was in 1979, and the national debt is seven times as large. To put that number in perspective, the national debt is now larger than our entire economy.

The situation is not only getting worse, it is getting worse faster than ever. More than 40 percent of the national debt accumulated since our founding has piled up under President Obama, and he has 2 more years in office. While those things have changed, and changed for the worse, the choice before us remains the same.

Some of my colleagues might disagree with the CBO Director and think that piling up trillions and trillions of dollars in debt is no big deal; that these are just numbers in the air with no impact on the real world. Perhaps they think our large and growing national debt won't have any negative consequences, won't impede economic growth, won't restrain policymakers' flexibility to respond to challenges, and won't heighten the risk of the fiscal crisis. Some of my colleagues might believe we have no obligation to handle the American people's money responsibly or perhaps they believe this money belongs to government and not the American people at all.

Some of my colleagues might insist, despite decades of demonstrated failure, that Congress can somehow get its fiscal act together on its own. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Some of my colleagues might say the American people should not be able to set fiscal rules for the government they elect. Perhaps they think the Federal Government should control the Constitution, not the other way around.

I say to my colleagues who think those things: I can understand why you would oppose sending this balanced budget amendment to the States for consideration.

But now a word to my other colleagues: If you think this growing mountain of debt is dangerous and must be stopped, if you believe we have exhausted every other means of stopping it, and if you say the American people have the right to decide how their government should operate, then I invite you to support this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 6.

The Senate has on four separate occasions voted on a balanced budget amendment since I introduced that proposal in 1979. You can see it on this chart. We actually passed one in 1982 when the national debt was $2.5 trillion. But the House, controlled by Democrats at the time, did not take it up.

The Senate voted on another balanced budget amendment in 1994 when the national debt was $6.9 trillion. It fell a few votes short.

Three years later, when the national debt was $7.9 trillion, we came within a single vote of passage in 1997.

And in 2011, the fourth from the left there on the chart, we voted on the last balanced budget amendment I introduced. At that time, the national debt had grown to $15.1 trillion, and it is almost $3 trillion higher today.

CBO tells us not only that the national debt will swell by an additional $7.6 trillion in the next 10 years, but that interest on that debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget. The low interest rates we see today, after all, will not last forever.

CBO warns that, on our current path, interest costs alone will quadruple from $200 billion today to nearly $800 billion in 10 years. In only 6 years, if we do not change course, spending on interest will surpass either defense or nondefense spending. Every dollar spent to service debt cannot be spent protecting our country or helping our citizens. This is the fiscal equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. The debt keeps growing, the danger keeps building, while Congress keeps pretending and stalling.

What if we had sent a balanced budget amendment to the States in the 1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s? How different would the budget process be today?

When I spoke here in June 1979, I offered two additional reasons for adopting a balanced budget amendment.

First, I said a fixed spending ceiling ``requires that Congress think in order of budget priorities.''

Second, I said:

In my mind, a balanced budget or spending limitation

amendment offers the potential to impose new limits upon the

National Government, replacing those that have largely been

eroded over the years.

That is why the American people have never been able to use their Constitution to set fiscal rules for Washington--because doing so would set limits the national government does not want. But our liberty depends on setting and enforcing such limits.

I will repeat what I said here in 1979:

This is certainly not a trivial objective. Rather, it goes

to the heart of what our system of government is going to be

in the future.

That is the choice before us, and before the American people.

I have to say that if we look at the current budget, it is a fraud the President has submitted. It is pathetic. And even with that current budget, saying they are going to save us money, we are about a half trillion dollars in debt--in further debt, I might add. It is piling up in irreducible ways. It is something we have to do something about. We can no longer sit around and pretend that, somehow, Congress is going to take care of it, when Congress doesn't have the will to take care of it. A balanced budget amendment is an important part of changing that.

I will speak later on the actual amendment and what it says and what it means and how it will work. I believe it is an appropriate way of bringing this country under control and getting us to live within our means. It will take time even if we start today. But we are not starting today.

This administration cannot get anywhere near what it wants in this budget without a huge tax increase. We have had tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, and it never makes a dip in the Federal debt. We have to wake up around here and start doing some things right, or this country--the greatest country in the world--will not be able to remain so. But it has to.

If we look at the rest of the world--we are in terrible shape throughout the rest of the world. There is no other country in this world that can lead like ours can--except for evil. There are countries that can really lead, but they would lead for evil. We have got to stop that. And the only way we can is to have a nation that lives within its means, does what is right, and balances its budget. It is going to take years, if we pass this amendment, to balance the budget. If the amendment gets passed and then is supported by three-quarters of the States--38 States--this amendment will do the job.

Whatever we do, it is going to be tough. But that is better than a profligacy that is continuing to go along under all kinds of phony arguments that, when we look back on them, are really phony. They act as though they are really trying to do something about this, while spending us into bankruptcy, and more and more causing us to not be able to live within our means.

We have got to change this, and I am convinced the only way we will is with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is the only way we can find enough people in this country who respect the Constitution to cause the result that we live--or at least start living--within our means.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to require that Congress and the President handle the American people's money more responsibly and balance the Nation's debt and budget. Like the last two Congresses, the entire Republican Conference has cosponsored this proposal.

I know the Constitution sets a high threshold for Congress to propose an amendment, but it is critical we do so for three reasons:

First, piling up more debt year after year is imposing greater and greater harm to our economy and to our society. Last week, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee, noting that the national debt is expected to swell by another $7.6 trillion--trillion with a T--over the next 10 years. He said:

Such large and growing national debt would have serious

negative consequences, including increasing Federal spending

for interest payments; restraining economic growth in the

long term; giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to

unexpected challenges; and eventually heightening the risk of

a fiscal crisis.

He is the Director of the Federal budget office and he said that on January 21, 2015. Just think about that. And he is a Democrat. He has been a very good budget director, as far as I am concerned, and I have enjoyed looking at his analyses over the years.

Our Nation is on an unsustainable path and we simply cannot wait any longer to make responsible decisions for our future.

Second, Washington will not keep our fiscal house in order unless required to do so by the Constitution. Congress has pretended that good intentions alone would keep our checkbook balanced. Congress has tried putting limits in place by legislation or other rules. Congress has stuck its head in the sand or at other times cried that the sky would fall if we really did get our fiscal act together. Over many decades we have demonstrated that nothing short of a constitutional requirement will work.

Third, the American people have the right to set rules for how Washington handles their money. The Constitution is a rulebook for government and it belongs to the American people. Proposing an amendment does not add it to the Constitution but only sends it to the States for debate and consideration. And while it takes two-thirds of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, it takes three- fourths of the States to ratify it. That high level of national consensus may or may not exist, but the American people deserve the opportunity to find out.

On June 7, 1979, nearly 36 years ago, I stood on this floor when I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 86, my first balanced budget amendment. In today's dollars the budget deficit that year was $95 billion and the national debt was $2.6 trillion, which was about 30 percent of our gross domestic product. I said then that only in Washington could this situation be described as anything less than obscene.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I concede a few things have changed since 1979. For example, the deficit for the current fiscal year is six times higher than it was in 1979, and the national debt is seven times as large. To put that number in perspective, the national debt is now larger than our entire economy.

The situation is not only getting worse, it is getting worse faster than ever. More than 40 percent of the national debt accumulated since our founding has piled up under President Obama, and he has 2 more years in office. While those things have changed, and changed for the worse, the choice before us remains the same.

Some of my colleagues might disagree with the CBO Director and think that piling up trillions and trillions of dollars in debt is no big deal; that these are just numbers in the air with no impact on the real world. Perhaps they think our large and growing national debt won't have any negative consequences, won't impede economic growth, won't restrain policymakers' flexibility to respond to challenges, and won't heighten the risk of the fiscal crisis. Some of my colleagues might believe we have no obligation to handle the American people's money responsibly or perhaps they believe this money belongs to government and not the American people at all.

Some of my colleagues might insist, despite decades of demonstrated failure, that Congress can somehow get its fiscal act together on its own. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Some of my colleagues might say the American people should not be able to set fiscal rules for the government they elect. Perhaps they think the Federal Government should control the Constitution, not the other way around.

I say to my colleagues who think those things: I can understand why you would oppose sending this balanced budget amendment to the States for consideration.

But now a word to my other colleagues: If you think this growing mountain of debt is dangerous and must be stopped, if you believe we have exhausted every other means of stopping it, and if you say the American people have the right to decide how their government should operate, then I invite you to support this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 6.

The Senate has on four separate occasions voted on a balanced budget amendment since I introduced that proposal in 1979. You can see it on this chart. We actually passed one in 1982 when the national debt was $2.5 trillion. But the House, controlled by Democrats at the time, did not take it up.

The Senate voted on another balanced budget amendment in 1994 when the national debt was $6.9 trillion. It fell a few votes short.

Three years later, when the national debt was $7.9 trillion, we came within a single vote of passage in 1997.

And in 2011, the fourth from the left there on the chart, we voted on the last balanced budget amendment I introduced. At that time, the national debt had grown to $15.1 trillion, and it is almost $3 trillion higher today.

CBO tells us not only that the national debt will swell by an additional $7.6 trillion in the next 10 years, but that interest on that debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget. The low interest rates we see today, after all, will not last forever.

CBO warns that, on our current path, interest costs alone will quadruple from $200 billion today to nearly $800 billion in 10 years. In only 6 years, if we do not change course, spending on interest will surpass either defense or nondefense spending. Every dollar spent to service debt cannot be spent protecting our country or helping our citizens. This is the fiscal equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. The debt keeps growing, the danger keeps building, while Congress keeps pretending and stalling.

What if we had sent a balanced budget amendment to the States in the 1970s, 1980s, or even 1990s? How different would the budget process be today?

When I spoke here in June 1979, I offered two additional reasons for adopting a balanced budget amendment.

First, I said a fixed spending ceiling ``requires that Congress think in order of budget priorities.''

Second, I said:

In my mind, a balanced budget or spending limitation

amendment offers the potential to impose new limits upon the

National Government, replacing those that have largely been

eroded over the years.

That is why the American people have never been able to use their Constitution to set fiscal rules for Washington--because doing so would set limits the national government does not want. But our liberty depends on setting and enforcing such limits.

I will repeat what I said here in 1979:

This is certainly not a trivial objective. Rather, it goes

to the heart of what our system of government is going to be

in the future.

That is the choice before us, and before the American people.

I have to say that if we look at the current budget, it is a fraud the President has submitted. It is pathetic. And even with that current budget, saying they are going to save us money, we are about a half trillion dollars in debt--in further debt, I might add. It is piling up in irreducible ways. It is something we have to do something about. We can no longer sit around and pretend that, somehow, Congress is going to take care of it, when Congress doesn't have the will to take care of it. A balanced budget amendment is an important part of changing that.

I will speak later on the actual amendment and what it says and what it means and how it will work. I believe it is an appropriate way of bringing this country under control and getting us to live within our means. It will take time even if we start today. But we are not starting today.

This administration cannot get anywhere near what it wants in this budget without a huge tax increase. We have had tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, and it never makes a dip in the Federal debt. We have to wake up around here and start doing some things right, or this country--the greatest country in the world--will not be able to remain so. But it has to.

If we look at the rest of the world--we are in terrible shape throughout the rest of the world. There is no other country in this world that can lead like ours can--except for evil. There are countries that can really lead, but they would lead for evil. We have got to stop that. And the only way we can is to have a nation that lives within its means, does what is right, and balances its budget. It is going to take years, if we pass this amendment, to balance the budget. If the amendment gets passed and then is supported by three-quarters of the States--38 States--this amendment will do the job.

Whatever we do, it is going to be tough. But that is better than a profligacy that is continuing to go along under all kinds of phony arguments that, when we look back on them, are really phony. They act as though they are really trying to do something about this, while spending us into bankruptcy, and more and more causing us to not be able to live within our means.

We have got to change this, and I am convinced the only way we will is with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is the only way we can find enough people in this country who respect the Constitution to cause the result that we live--or at least start living--within our means.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a matter of utmost importance: the Department of Homeland Security funding bill,

I suggest the absence of a quorum.